I walked out thinking "I think I liked it". It was confusing but I thought Gosling was great. Ford slept walked through just like he did in TFA so I could've done without Deckerd but I did enjoy the nostalgia. Joi and especially Luv were fantastic IMO. I'm so over Jared Leto and whenever he was on screen the movie dragged to a halt. I loved the score, it was heavy and hit all the right notes to me.

3.5 out of 5 for me. It could be a 4 if it was tightened up and the whole Wallace thing was removed from the movie.

__________________

Quote:

"One of the things with the wall is you need transparency," Trump said. "You have to be able to see through it. In other words, if you can't see through that wall — so it could be a steel wall with openings, but you have to have openings because you have to see what's on the other side of the wall."

Wallace sent Deckard on his way to be tortured Off-World. K rescued him from that. What happens after Deckard lives is up to the viewer to think about.

What you describe happens after the film ends. Deckard's daughter is a born replicant and it's going to be exposed after the events in the film. She's aware of what's happening, after she sees K's memory that she illegally created (from her own childhood).

Replicants might have a revolution, and they start exterminating humans. Wallace will likely be jailed or killed. I'm happy when things are left to happen off-screen.

So you are essentially saying you like movies where essentially nothing happens and there is no payoff whatsoever. Well Blade Runner 2049 is that.

This movie is all style over substance. It failed because it is a bad film, that seems to only appeal to hard core film buffs, and is actively hostile to female viewers. I am all for giving directors and film creators creative freedom. but in all honesty the studio should have never have approved the script, and definitely not the budget.

So you are essentially saying you like movies where essentially nothing happens and there is no payoff whatsoever. Well Blade Runner 2049 is that.

Every movie these days is taking down an entire corporation, or spy organization, or stopping a monster from destroying a city. BR 2049 was quite thankfully not one of those movies. I was so glad when K didn’t go after Wallace and take him down, because that would be so fucking cliche. In life often all you get are small victories, just like in the original film.

__________________
Back by popular demand:
Stop supporting the tools of imperialism and dirty capitalists—Abolish the police, abolish the military!

I'll go with masterpiece. It avoided every stupid cliche imaginable and emerged as something of true cinematic depth and beauty. Did I feel every minute of its 163 minute runtime? Maybe for the first half. By the time everything coalesced in the third act, everything paid of handsomely.

I'm gonna let this stew in my head for awhile, but wtf I'll give it five stars right now.

__________________The only thing that would have made that movie watchable is if she could lick her own ass. - Josh-da-manFuck you and your whore asshole that Eddie Money wouldn't dare touch. - Solid SnakeI wonder if I would turn invisible if I stick my finger up her ass. - Josh-da-manIf she sneezes and tries to hold it in, will her penis pop back out?- Abob Teff

Every movie these days is taking down an entire corporation, or spy organization, or stopping a monster from destroying a city. BR 2049 was quite thankfully not one of those movies. I was so glad when K didn’t go after Wallace and take him down, because that would be so fucking cliche. In life often all you get are small victories, just like in the original film.

Huh? Tyrell gets killed in the original. Hell, Tyrell Corporation goes belly up in 2022 (succinctly told in a freaking 15 minute anime of all things) and Wallace gets spared at the end of a 2.5 hr film? Again, it's either sloppy filmmaking/storytelling, or the studios wanted to continue with a Blade Runner-verse. This bombing nixes future plans. Although if they gave Watanabe a shot with animated series -- it would be phenomenal.

Huh? Tyrell gets killed in the original. Hell, Tyrell Corporation goes belly up in 2022 (succinctly told in a freaking 15 minute anime of all things) and Wallace gets spared at the end of a 2.5 hr film? Again, it's either sloppy filmmaking/storytelling, or the studios wanted to continue with a Blade Runner-verse. This bombing nixes future plans. Although if they gave Watanabe a shot with animated series -- it would be phenomenal.

Tyrell is killed but not because Roy is trying to take down the Tyrell Corporation, and in fact he doesn’t take down the corporation, because they continue making Replicants for years after Tyrell’s death and are only brought down by successive uprisings. The motivations of the characters in 2049 are totally different than the Replicants in the original, and taking down Wallace makes no sense for the film.

It’s not sloppy storytelling. Wallace isn’t a central character to the story being told, and neither is the Replicant uprising. It’s K’s story, and it ends where it needs to.

__________________
Back by popular demand:
Stop supporting the tools of imperialism and dirty capitalists—Abolish the police, abolish the military!

Tyrell is killed but not because Roy is trying to take down the Tyrell Corporation. The motivations of the characters in 2049 are totally different than the Replicants in the original, and taking down Wallace makes no sense for the film.

It’s not sloppy storytelling. Wallace isn’t a central character to the story being told, and neither is the Replicant uprising. It’s K’s story, and it ends where it needs to.

What’s a cop out? Why does every thread have to be resolved, even if those threads aren’t central to the story being told?

Because it was something that was established. Not just Wallace but the Replicant uprising. Either that, or it's TWO of the biggest red herrings ever. I really hope that the studio or Ridley, Denis, whomever, come out and say that they were open to the possibilities of more. It's so fucking glaring.

It obviously didn't bother you and that's fine. It bothered me and I still liked the film, but for something like this -- it required resolution.

The original Blade Runner is a masterpiece that bucks all convention. If Blade Runner 2049 didn't have "Blade Runner" in the title, or featuring any of the principals from the first film, it would be easily forgotten before the first weekend got over.

__________________
STREAMING: All the fun of paying the fiddler and then dancing to the tune of HIS choice.

The original Blade Runner is a masterpiece that bucks all convention. If Blade Runner 2049 didn't have "Blade Runner" in the title, or featuring any of the principals from the first film, it would be easily forgotten before the first weekend got over.

This is the second time you've said this in this thread. You forgot to include "Or wasn't a continuation of the story". Maybe you found the movie forgettable, I didn't.

I just saw it a second time. First time, I was like yeah Harrison Ford is being Harrison Ford, but the second time around. Damn. I don't really give a crap about the Oscars these days, but I sure would like to see him get a Best Supporting.

Anyway. I don't get that excited about movies much these days. This one ignited some passion in me that I haven't felt in years.

"...you've taken a side in an ideological battle, while pretending all the way
that you're simply defending the supposedly neutral value of free speech.
Don't think we don't notice which instances of speech you choose to defend." - Contrapoints

So you are essentially saying you like movies where essentially nothing happens and there is no payoff whatsoever.

They payoff is there.

I like movies where things happen off-screen. See: Terminator 1 & 2 VS Terminator Salvation. Or Matrix VS Matrix 2 & 3. I do believe that not everything needs to be seen and explained away. Off-screen ambiguity can be more powerful than anything that can be shown on screen.

We begged for a futuristic Terminator movie ... and then got Terminator Salvation. We really wanted to see the city of Zion in the Matrix ... and then got a Zion rave party while an army of robots closed in.

Everyone should watch the anime short too. It really adds to the Blade Runner world.

Because it was something that was established. Not just Wallace but the Replicant uprising. Either that, or it's TWO of the biggest red herrings ever. I really hope that the studio or Ridley, Denis, whomever, come out and say that they were open to the possibilities of more. It's so fucking glaring.

It obviously didn't bother you and that's fine. It bothered me and I still liked the film, but for something like this -- it required resolution.

Those things flesh out the world. K is caught in a situation that’s much bigger than him. But it’s his story, not the story of the uprising or even the story of Deckard’s daughter. It’s actually a very noir thing. Would Chinatown have been better if Jake had taken down all the bad guys?

__________________
Back by popular demand:
Stop supporting the tools of imperialism and dirty capitalists—Abolish the police, abolish the military!

I just saw it a second time. First time, I was like yeah Harrison Ford is being Harrison Ford, but the second time around. Damn. I don't really give a crap about the Oscars these days, but I sure would like to see him get a Best Supporting.

Anyway. I don't get that excited about movies much these days. This one ignited some passion in me that I haven't felt in years.

I like movies where things happen off-screen. See: Terminator 1 & 2 VS Terminator Salvation. Or Matrix VS Matrix 2 & 3. I do believe that not everything needs to be seen and explained away. Off-screen ambiguity can be more powerful than anything that can be shown on screen.

We begged for a futuristic Terminator movie ... and then got Terminator Salvation. We really wanted to see the city of Zion in the Matrix ... and then got a Zion rave party while an army of robots closed in.

Everyone should watch the anime short too. It really adds to the Blade Runner world.

I don't disagree that you do not need to see everything, such as off world, or the replicant uprising or even Deckard's conversation with his daughter, but what I fail to see in this movie is really any payoff on pretty much anything.

Nothing really happens in this movie at all. I mean you could right the entire plot in just a couple lines. I don't see what others are seeing in this. It really didn't pose any questions, or really have any character arc,

Ford basically does nothing in this movie. Not sure why people think he did great work or deserves acclaim.

Essentially the entire resolution is guy that abandoned his daughter intentionally to protect her, reunites with her, when nothing has really changed in terms of needing to protect her, and everyone except for the evil corporation knows all about her anyway.

K goes off "baseline" and does not kill the daughter once he realizes who it is, but he had already stated he wouldn't kill someone that was born. Is the big arc that he disobeyed a command and exerted free will?

Less actually happens in this movie than any movie I can think of, and there is no payoff on any level that I can see. And the whole fight with the bad enforcer droid for Wallace was just a gigantic cliche.

I like it less the more I think about it. One of the dullest most overly self important movie I have seen in a very long while.

Masterpiece? Just don't get it. I wont comment anymore, the praise is just utterly baffling to me. I will say the people in my showing HATED it.

Reading the debate here and finding the critical camp more persuasive in terms of deciding whether I'll see the film or not, I went back to A.O. Scott's mixed-to-favorable review in The New York Times and found these two paragraphs to be relevant to the discussion here:

Quote:

Which is not something I’m going to explain, at least as far as it relates to the story. The studio has been unusually insistent in its pleas to critics not to reveal plot points. That’s fair enough, but it’s also evidence of how imaginatively impoverished big-budget movies have become. Like any great movie, Mr. Scott’s “Blade Runner” cannot be spoiled. It repays repeated viewing because its mysteries are too deep to be solved and don’t depend on the sequence of events. Mr. Villeneuve’s film, by contrast, is a carefully engineered narrative puzzle, and its power dissipates as the pieces snap into place. As sumptuous and surprising as it is from one scene to the next, it lacks the creative excess, the intriguing opacity and the haunting residue of its predecessor.

As such, “Blade Runner 2049” stands in relation to “Blade Runner” almost exactly as K stands in relation to Deckard before the two meet: as a more docile, less rebellious “improvement,” tweaked and retrofitted to meet consumer demand. And the customers are likely to be satisfied. But now and then — when K and Deckard are knocking around the old gambling palace; when K visits an enigmatic mind-technician played by Carla Juri — you get an inkling that something else might have been possible. Something freer, more romantic, more heroic, less determined by the corporate program.

I've never depended on a professional reviewer's critique of a movie to determine my level of interest or entertainment, reviewers almost always seem to dismiss a film I find thoroughly enjoyable. It just disheartens me when I read reviews of a movie, after I've seen and decided said movie was exceptional entertainment, that trashes the movie I've just seen and thoroughly enjoyed. It makes me wonder what was going through their minds as they watched the movie. Did they even watch the (same) movie (I did)? Or were they distracted throughout? Did they carry preconceived expectations with them into the movie which were not met? I just know that 9 times out of 10, most reviewers disliked movies that I found thoroughly entertaining and enjoyable. Based on that, I won't let professional reviews determine what movies I see and don't see.